# Abortion and child support **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985 "2010-12-13T15:24:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/621 "2011-01-05T21:49:17Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I have no desire to engage you on it. But I just prefer you to express your ‘interesting’ outlook accurately rather than talking around it. That outlook will make a plank in her platform when she runs for office. (Or, perhaps, the whole platform?) Which party will assist her in making her dream a reality? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/622 "2011-01-05T21:53:39Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Which means she should find out while there is still time for an abortion if he wants a brat. All of this is shoulda woulda coulda. What would prompt her to “find out” if she’s pregnant if she’s unaware of anything unusual in her body? Plenty of women have irregular periods due to PCOS or other conditions, and plenty of women are obese and don’t even appear pregnant until late. You can use the word “should” all you want (and I laugh at such earnestness), but the reality is you can’t legally hold someone responsible for diagnosing themselves with a medical condition, whether that be pregnancy or hypertension. > [@](#): > > If he does get the child support negotiations hammered out legally like an adult. Having the default be that no man is held responsible for his offspring unless a paper is signed is a ridculous pipe dream that hasn’t a chance in hell of obtaining legislative approval in a civilized society. So if this is the best idea that you and others can come up with to get the justice you’re seeking, good luck and keep dreaming. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/623 "2011-01-05T21:55:26Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Why would any man ever do anything but get a “paper abortion?” You’d be insane to promise to support your kid when you don’t legally have to. WTF, are you talking about? Are you that convinced that all men are scumbags? > [@](#): > > So what would happen is that men and women would make plans to have a baby (or, at least, not make plans not to have a baby) and then when the woman was pregnant her partner is going to say something like “Honey, of course I’ll take care of you and our lovely child and I love you guys to pieces. We don’t need a legal contract to guarantee that! I have to sign this paper to make sure I have the flexibility to take care of you guys the right way. We are never splitting up, honey, so don’t worry about it. It doesn’t change a thing. Everything it going to be okay.” Or maybe, in between painting the nursery walls and shopping for car seats, he’ll duck into the courthouse and sign it without telling a soul, for insurance. A) the law would never work that way, you couldn’t do it secretly and B) no offense but you seem tohave a very low opinion of men. > [@](#): > > Of course then when one partners decides they are not into it any more, the custodial child and parents (and likely the taxpayers) are screwed. And when would this occur? I think the porposal is that the man has until the end of the first trimester (or a couple of weeks after he finds out) to make his decision. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/624 "2011-01-05T21:59:41Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > You know some crazy vindictive people who are great at finding mind-numbingly stupid men, then. > > A man can watch a woman take a morning after pill or insist on a secondary barrier method that meets his approval. He can buy all the sponges he wants online. Extreme? Not compared to “ruining your life” by having to pay child support for eighteen years. I buy pills, take them religiously, and deal with their side effects because I don’t want to have a baby (or an abortion.) And if one of us can’t find a condom, we aren’t having sex. Two methods or it’s a no go for me. > > It’s a good deal of responsibility, and I don’t see why guys can’t do the same if they are so worried about it. > > In practice, of course, these “extreme” measures are often totally unnecessary. Most women are not marriage-money-baby rabid, and those that are usually do not hide it very well. If you stick to depositing your sperm in people you have at least a bit of trust in, chances are almost certain you will not end up paying unwanted child support. Of course if you are a horrible judge of character, you will probably have to be bit more cautious with who you fuck, just like you should probably be a bit more careful who you lend money to. Why should the rule be “don’t stick it in the crazy” instead of “don’t let the asshole stick it on you”? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/625 "2011-01-05T22:00:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why not just admit that its unfair but we are going to burden the guy with supporting a child that he does not want while giving the woman the right to decide whether or not the child is born. _Life_ is unfair, so admitting this is just redundant. After all, it’s not fair that anyone of us were born without a say so in the process. It’s not fair that we will all die, whether we want to or not. Let’s cry and poke out our bottom lips, why don’t we? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/626 "2011-01-05T22:08:14Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > We have a 50% divorce rate. Not even legal sanctions can keep people together (and no, it’s not always about men leaving women…quite often it’s the woman who decides to move on.) The fact is that our romantic relationships often do not last long enough to raise a kid. Given that fact, we need systems in place to make sure those kids still get raised even when their parent’s best paid plans go awry. > > It’d be stupid for anyone, no matter how in love and how much he wants to be a father, to get into an optional legal obligation. Any lawyer worth their salt would say “Hey, I know you intend to raise this kid, but it’s better to have more options than fewer. Sign the paper.” Men would have very little to lose from an “paper abortion” since chances are the woman is not going to abort the baby on that alone, but they potentially have a lot to gain. There is no reason not to sign it. > > A woman generally cannot force a man to get her pregnant. There are a lot of steps in between that give men ample room to make sure they are not leaving their sperm inside of baby-hungry women. My wife would leave me if I served her with papers saying that I will not be fincanially responsible for our child after we mutally agree to get pregnant. And she would be right. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/627 "2011-01-05T22:17:15Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > And I don’t see how you could prevent people from getting them in secret- it’s not like you are going to get many women to sign them. It couldn’t be secret. These things require service of process and courts will not let the man appear alone when he does this. the family court will want everyone there and make sure taht everyone understands what is going on. > [@](#): > > If promising to take care of your kids become optional, I can’t see why any man- even those who do intend to take care of their kids- would make that a legal obligation when they don’t have to. I’m a man and I would never think of laying out my exit strategy in the event I ever wanted to abandon my wife and children. The man that I am today would want to shoot myself in the head (so at least my family would get my life insurance) before I became that man. > [@](#): > > I would be open to the idea of a pre-sex agreement, where both parties can state their intentions openly. Marriage is a form of pre-sex agreement. > [@](#): > > That would keep people from saying one thing with their mouths and another with their lawyer. Of course “If I knock you up, you’re probably on your own, Babe,” probably isn’t going to get a lot of guys laid, which is why I suspect this idea isn’t floated. Otherwise, if your objectives are so clear why wouldn’t you be comfortable expressing them from the get-go? Outside of marraige, why should any woman assume that "“If I knock you up, you’re probably on your own, Babe,” isn’t the default? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/628 "2011-01-05T22:21:38Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I think **even sven** ’s argument is that the paper doesn’t change anything for men who intend to support their children - they will carry on supporting them even if they do sign. It would be rational to sign in that situation - you continue to support your kids, but give yourself an opt out if things change later. Now I know we don’t all act rationally at all times, but it seems to be the rational thing to do, even in the context of a loving marriage. Does the desire to not be a scumbag play into the analysis of rational choice? ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/629 "2011-01-05T22:27:12Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > All of this is shoulda woulda coulda. What would prompt her to “find out” if she’s pregnant if she’s unaware of anything unusual in her body? Plenty of women have irregular periods due to PCOS or other conditions, and plenty of women are obese and don’t even appear pregnant until late. You can use the word “should” all you want (and I laugh at such earnestness), but the reality is you can’t legally hold someone responsible for diagnosing themselves with a medical condition, whether that be pregnancy or hypertension. > > Having the default be that no man is held responsible for his offspring unless a paper is signed is a ridculous pipe dream that hasn’t a chance in hell of obtaining legislative approval in a civilized society. So if this is the best idea that you and others can come up with to get the justice you’re seeking, good luck and keep dreaming. Consider the number of men who avoid paying child support, I think it’s more than a dream. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/630 "2011-01-05T22:29:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why should the rule be “don’t stick it in the crazy” instead of “don’t let the asshole stick it on you”? Because that wouldn’t give the pseudo-martyr single mothers much sympathy, now would it? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/631 "2011-01-05T22:30:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What is this “X” number of days? What if she discovers she’s pregnant when she’s 5 or 6 months pregnant? What does this do to “X”? Most importantly, how does the state verify when the woman discovers she’s pregnant? She could always say she didn’t know until the baby poked it head out. How would anyone know if she was lying or not? If a woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant until the birth occurs (and yeah, it happens, albeit rarely), why should she be held fully responsible for a newborn that was created by her and another person? > > Your system is not “rather simple”. It’s a bureacratic nightmare that anyone with more than two brain cells could easily work around if they chose to do so. And really, I don’t know why this isn’t freakin obvious on its face. And those cases that you are talking about that makes the plan so unworkable seem rare enough that the burden on the government would not be that great if the man decided he didn’t want the child within a reasonable period after he found out. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/632 "2011-01-06T01:28:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And those cases that you are talking about that makes the plan so unworkable seem rare enough that the burden on the government would not be that great if the man decided he didn’t want the child within a reasonable period after he found out. What makes you think these cases would remain rare if we allowed men to opt out? A woman who found out she was pregnant would have to be a fool if she notified the father of her pregnancy. It would always be in her best interest to simply wait until it was too late to get an abortion before letting him know. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/633 "2011-01-06T02:20:46Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Consider the number of men who avoid paying child support, I think it’s more than a dream. You’re right. The correct word is a nightmare. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/634 "2011-01-06T03:48:20Z")
What really grinds on me, in these discussions, is the assumption that the courts are cruelly unfair to men, awarding custody predominantly to the women. Grrr… There is a very simple and obvious reason why the courts continue to predominantly favour the mothers for custody. Because before the marriage failed the husbands did too. Before the excrement hit the air cooling device, he was all okey dokey with her being the primary caregiver, perhaps even giving up working outside the home. In fact, he trusted her to feed, mind, and rear, said child, for anywhere from a few months to several years. Now that the marriage is over, she’s not a good choice anymore. Really? Unless she’s taken to crack whoring, she’s the one these children see as their primary caregiver. To take that away from a 2yr old, 4 yr old, 6 yr old, etc, while the family is splintering would be the very height of cruelty. Are you seriously advocating that your children would be better served by having their care taken over by strangers, while you’re at work? A ten year old could reason their way through that much, crikey. Yes, parents get screwed all the time, and sometimes it’s upside down to how it ought to be, but that’s the exception not the rule. Stop pretending it’s otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/635 "2011-01-06T07:01:44Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > _Life_ is unfair, so admitting this is just redundant. After all, it’s not fair that anyone of us were born without a say so in the process. It’s not fair that we will all die, whether we want to or not. > > Let’s cry and poke out our bottom lips, why don’t we? Well that argument was very convincing. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/636 "2011-01-06T07:04:06Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What makes you think these cases would remain rare if we allowed men to opt out? A woman who found out she was pregnant would have to be a fool if she notified the father of her pregnancy. It would always be in her best interest to simply wait until it was too late to get an abortion before letting him know. Because the guy would still get to opt out and she would be stuck with whatever the government will give her. Thats no different than what we have now if the woman doesn’t identify the father. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/637 "2011-01-06T07:05:32Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > What really grinds on me, in these discussions, is the assumption that the courts are cruelly unfair to men, awarding custody predominantly to the women. Grrr… > > There is a very simple and obvious reason why the courts continue to predominantly favour the mothers for custody. Because before the marriage failed the husbands did too. Before the excrement hit the air cooling device, he was all okey dokey with her being the primary caregiver, perhaps even giving up working outside the home. In fact, he trusted her to feed, mind, and rear, said child, for anywhere from a few months to several years. Now that the marriage is over, she’s not a good choice anymore. Really? Unless she’s taken to crack whoring, she’s the one these children see as their primary caregiver. To take that away from a 2yr old, 4 yr old, 6 yr old, etc, while the family is splintering would be the very height of cruelty. Are you seriously advocating that your children would be better served by having their care taken over by strangers, while you’re at work? > > A ten year old could reason their way through that much, crikey. > > Yes, parents get screwed all the time, and sometimes it’s upside down to how it ought to be, but that’s the exception not the rule. Stop pretending it’s otherwise. The topic of the thread is the dynamic before birth. Pregnant women who don’t want kids can get abortions, men can’t, thats kind of the central theme of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/638 "2011-01-06T12:23:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because the guy would still get to opt out and she would be stuck with whatever the government will give her. Thats no different than what we have now if the woman doesn’t identify the father. The government would never sign up for this idea; that’s why this plan amounts to fantasy dreaming. That’s what yall don’t get. Your solution is against the interest of women, children, and Uncle Sam. The only group who would benefit are deadbeat dads. Why would any politician vote for this? They’d have to be insane. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/639 "2011-01-06T12:26:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well that argument was very convincing. Since I’m on the side of status quo, I really don’t have to make a convincing argument. The onus is on those who are complaining. And I’m sorry, but saying “It’s unfair!” isn’t going to change any hearts and minds. It’s just going to get you labeled a whiner. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/640 "2011-01-06T13:28:34Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Since I’m on the side of status quo, I really don’t have to make a convincing argument. The onus is on those who are complaining. And I’m sorry, but saying “It’s unfair!” isn’t going to change any hearts and minds. It’s just going to get you labeled a whiner. That is an awesome post. You don’t mind if I borrow it for, oh, a gay marriage thread or something? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985.md?page=33)